LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ajay Shankar Srivastava vs. Bar Council of India & Anr.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 346Decided 10 Apr 2023
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 82 of 2023
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · J.B. Pardiwala · Joymalya Bagchi · V. Mohana as the other judges · Narasimha

Background

A practising advocate filed a writ petition raising two issues: first, challenging a 1 November 2022 office order of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to all State Bar Councils that appeared to halt the ongoing verification of advocates' educational degrees and enrollment certificates (a process begun under the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, and monitored via a related transferred case); second, questioning the method used to co-opt members to fill casual vacancies in State Bar Councils. The BCI's counter-affidavit showed that of roughly 20.57 lakh enrolled advocates, only about 9.22 lakh had submitted verification forms/declarations, and the BCI expressed concern that many non-compliant advocates might hold fake degrees, some of whom had even been elected to State Bar Councils or appointed to judicial office. The BCI clarified that its November 2022 letter was not meant to stop verification altogether, but only to prevent State Bar Councils from verifying based solely on certificates of practice without checking the underlying degree certificates.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that due verification of advocates is of utmost importance to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice, since unqualified persons posing as lawyers pose a grave danger to litigants and the courts. Accepting the BCI's suggestion, the Court constituted a High Powered Committee: chaired by a former Supreme Court judge (Justice Deepak Gupta) and including two former High Court judges and two senior advocates, with liberty for the BCI to nominate three more members, to monitor and direct the verification process across all State Bar Councils. The Court directed all Universities and Examination Boards to verify educational certificates without charging any fee, and required the Committee to convene promptly and file a status report by 31 August 2023. It clarified that constituting the Committee was not, by itself, a direction extending the existing terms of the State Bar Councils, and listed the petition (along with the related Transferred Case No. 126 of 2015) for further hearing on 11 September 2023: the second issue about co-option of casual vacancies was not decided in this order and remains pending.

Lesson Learnt

Courts can step in to ensure regulatory bodies like the Bar Council of India actually complete important self-regulatory exercises (like weeding out fake-degree holders from the legal profession) through time-bound, monitored mechanisms, protecting both the public and the integrity of the justice system from unqualified practitioners.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case